Posts Categorized: torture accountability

The Supreme Court today declined to hear arguments on behalf of Guantanamo Bay detainees seeking release under the habeas corpus doctrine, and on behalf of an American citizen seeking nominal damages for torture he suffered at the hands of the U.S. government. The Court’s denial of cert means that the U.S. government can indefinitely hold detainees even when there have been no formal charges brought against them.

Another of today’s cert denials impedes an American citizen from bringing suit against high-profile Pentagon officials for authorizing years of torture committed on American soil.

Four years ago tomorrow, in Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court held that detainees can challenge their confinement in Guantanamo Bay as a violation of habeas corpus if the government has not identified the charges against them. Yet today, the Court refused to entertain the detainees’ claims that the consistent denial of habeas corpus petitions by the conservative D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals defies the Supreme Court’s precedent in Boumediene.

The D.C. Circuit has never ruled in a detainee’s favor and has explicitly criticized the Boumediene majority, seeming to pay greater heed to the dissents by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia. Bush II appointee Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote in Latif v. Obama, one of the cases at issue in today’s order, that “Boumediene’s airy suppositions have caused great difficulty for the executive and the courts,” and that the decision has “fundamentally altered the calculus of war, guaranteeing that the benefit of intelligence that might be gained — even from high-value detainees — is outweighed by the systemic cost of defending detention decisions.” Brown’s opinion places murky and unsubstantiated government accusations above fundamental habeas corpus rights.

One of the most notable appeals denied today arises from Brown’s infuriating decision in Latif. In that case, the district court granted the habeas corpus petition of Yemeni citizen Adnan Latif, who has been held in Guantanamo since 2002. The circuit court reversed the district court’s decision, because government reports stated that Latif was seeking military training from Al-Qaeda, even though Latif had documented proof that he was seeking medical treatment and religious training in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The circuit court’s decision makes it almost impossible for a detainee to be released, by holding that the burden of proof rests upon the detainee to prove that the government’s intelligence is flawed.

In a vigorous dissent, Judge David S. Tatel contended that relying on the government’s unsupported accounts overwhelmingly tips the balance of justice in the government’s favor and allows appeals courts to reject the factual findings of a district court too easily.

Another notable appeal rejected today comes from American citizen Jose Padilla. Padilla sued for nominal damages of $1 against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other government officials, after being tortured for years in a military prison near Charleston, South Carolina. Padilla, born in Brooklyn, claims that he was shackled in stress positions, was injected with “truth serums,” was subjected to sleep deprivation, and was threatened with death. The Supreme Court declined to hear Padilla’s appeal of the lower court’s dismissal of his claims.

That none of the nine justices dissented to the denial of cert for any of the seven Guantanamo cases signals that the notoriously conservative D.C. Circuit Court is now the court of last resort for Guantanamo detainees. Leaving the detainees’ fate in the D.C. Circuit’s hands is tantamount to allowing the government to detain foreign nationals indefinitely without ever formally charging them or bringing them before a court.

Just as distressingly, by declining to hear the appeals, the Supreme Court is also allowing a rogue lower court to flagrantly ignore its precedent when it finds it to be too “airy.”

By allowing the Padilla decision to stand, the Court is helping to shield government officials from disturbing accusations of torture and rubberstamping its continued use. It is especially troubling that an American citizen can be tortured by Americans, on American soil, and have no recourse in American courts.

Today the Supreme Court issued its decision (.pdf download) in Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, holding that the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (“TVPA”) provides for liability only of natural persons, not organizations or corporations.

In this case, the family of a U.S. citizen, who was tortured and killed by intelligence officers of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, sued under the 1991 Torture Victim Protection Act (“TVPA”). The TVPA provides a cause of action against “[a]n individual” for torture or extrajudicial killing committed under authority or “color of law” of any foreign state. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that the TVPA applies only to natural persons, not to organizations.

Today the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the D.C. Circuit. In an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, the Court considered the statutory language and legislative history of the TVPA, concluding that the everyday meaning of the word “individual” applies in this case and only includes natural persons. Petitioners had tried to convince the Court that, because Congress normally provides for organizational liability in tort statutes, its use of the word “individual” here was unusual and could only be parsed with consideration of the legislative history.

The legislative history, petitioners argued, reveals that Congress used the word “individual” to make clear that state entities could not be sued, but not to exclude corporate or organizational liability.

The Court’s opinion referenced Mohamad’s companion case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. The Court initially granted cert in Kiobel on the question of corporate liability under the 1789 Alien Tort Statute, but after oral argument, ordered the parties to brief the issue of extraterritoriality — that is, whether the ATS covers violations of international law committed overseas — and put the case to the Court’s next term. Justice Sotomayor’s reference to Kiobel shed little light on the Court’s thinking in that case, although the Court is widely expected to restrict the reach of the ATS when it ultimately rules.

By restricting the reach of the TVPA to natural persons, who may be difficult to identify and are often judgment-proof, the Court has significantly reduced the likelihood that torture victims or victims’ families will be able to hold their torturers accountable.

Ten years ago this week, the United States opened a detention facility at its naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Since that time, the name “Guantanamo” has come to be associated both in the United States and around the world with torture, lawlessness, indefinite detention, violations of civil rights, violations of international law, and abuse of power. The facility has been open for ten years now, but unfortunately, as Dahlia Lithwick noted this week in Slate, “It’s hard to say anything new about 10 full years of Guantanamo, beyond the fact that most of what we wrote two, four, and seven years ago still holds mostly true.”

‘The existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.’ So said President Barack Obama in 2009, defending his promise to close the prison camp there. He is hardly the only one to hold the view that Guantánamo undermines our security and should be shuttered. Former President George W. Bush, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, former secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, and Senator John McCain, all agreed that the United States would be better off without Guantánamo. Few images do more to serve Al Qaeda’s interests.

There were hopes that the United States could remove this stain on its national character. Unfortunately, Congress has imposed restrictions on detainee transfers that have made it much more difficult to turn the page on this sad chapter in American history.

Wednesday, January 11th marks the 10th anniversary of the arrival of the first prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. It will also be three years since President Obama pledged to close the detention facility.

Next Wednesday, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) and broad a coalition of religious and human rights organizations will join together in Washington, DC to raise a voice of faith and conscience to mark this anniversary and send a message to the president and Congress that this is “10 Years Too Many.”

Noon – Rally at Lafayette Square (across from the White House) 1:00pm – Public Witness: a human chain of more than 2000 people, stretching from the White House to the Capitol2:00pm – Interfaith Reception at NY Ave Presbyterian Church will follow the public witness3:00pm – Interfaith Prayer Service at NY Ave Presbyterian Church led by Rev. J. Herbert Nelson (Director of the Washington Office of the Presbyterian Church USA), Rabbi Rachel Kahn-Troster (Rabbis for Human Rights-North America), and other religious leaders.

Ahead of this tragic anniversary, a new report by Human Rights USA and the International Human Rights Law Clinic at American University Washington College of Law was released detailing the Bush administration’s torture policies. The report presents detailed evidence that high-ranking Bush administration officials planned and authorized the illegal interrogation techniques which were used against detainee terror suspects. You can read more about the report here.

Human Rights USA, a non-profit human rights organization, released a report today entitled “Indefensible: A Reference for Prosecuting Torture and Other Felonies Committee by U.S. Officials Following September 11th.” The report presents detailed evidence that torture was the official policy of the Bush administration and that high-ranking Bush administration officials planned and authorized the illegal interrogation techniques which were used against detainee terror suspects in the aftermath of September 11th. The report calls for repudiation of torture by the U.S. government and accountability for government officials who authorized the torture. It also serves as a how-to guide for prosecutions of these officials should be conducted going forward.

From 2002 to 2007, the United States Department of Justice sanctioned acts of torture committed by members of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency against detained suspected terrorists. These acts of torture were outlined and authorized in a series of secret “torture memos” drafted by John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury, senior lawyers in the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel. In the decade since the beginning of the Bush administration’s illegal anti-terrorism policies, not one torture survivor has been able to bring to justice the government officials who authorized the acts of torture. The Human Rights USA report lays the groundwork for litigation against government officials responsible for approving and using illegal interrogation techniques that were the official policy of the Bush administration.

Alliance for Justice documented the radical justifications for torture in our short film Tortured Law, and advocates for full accountability for those officials in the U.S. government who legitimized torture. AFJ applauds and supports the Human Rights USA’s efforts to bring further light to the torture policies and achieve accountability for torture.

The new report is a collaborative effort between Human Rights USA and the International Human Rights Law Clinic at American University Washington College of Law. The report is available online.

The United States Supreme Court today granted cert. in two cases that affect the rights of individuals seeking to hold corporations and other organizations responsible for human rights violations.

In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, twelve Nigerian nationals sued Royal Dutch Petroleum and two other oil companies for aiding and abetting human rights abuses committed in the Ogoni Region of Nigeria in the early 1990s. To protest the environmental damage caused by the defendants’ oil exploration and production in the Ogoni region, Nigerian residents organized the “Movement for Survival of Ogoni People.” Plaintiffs allege that defendants then enlisted the Nigerian government to suppress the Ogoni activists.

In 1993 and 1994, the Nigerian military was involved in a variety of human rights abuses – shooting, killing, beating, raping, and arresting residents, as well as destroying and looting property – allegedly with the assistance of defendants.

To obtain compensation, and to deter future corporate wrongdoing, plaintiffs brought their claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), alleging that defendants had aided and abetted the Nigerian government in violating the law of nations, including extrajudicial killing, crimes against humanity, torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced exile, property destruction, and violation of the rights to life, liberty, security, and association.

The District Court dismissed some of the plaintiffs’ claims, finding that they were not established clearly enough under customary international law, while permitting the remainder to proceed. Both parties appealed the court’s ruling. Rather than decide the issues that had been certified for appeal, in a 2-1 decision, a panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed all claims by finding that corporations are not liable under the ATS.

The Alien Tort Statute, which was enacted by the first Congress in 1789, establishes jurisdiction for torts “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” Considering the limited jurisdiction of the ATS, the Second Circuit majority concluded that, while states and individual men and women have been held liable for human rights violations, corporations have not. The majority acknowledged that corporations are generally considered by U.S. courts to be “persons,” with corresponding rights and liabilities. However, it insisted that liability under domestic law – including under the laws of “most or even all ‘civilized nations’” – does not create a norm of customary international law.

As Judge Pierre Leval, who concurred only in the judgment, stated in a separate opinion, the majority “deal[t] a substantial blow to international law and its undertaking to protect fundamental human rights” by creating a rule “[w]ithout any support in either the precedents or the scholarship of international law. In Judge Leval’s view, the majority was wrong to derive a lack of precedent for the civil compensatory liability of corporations based on the lack of jurisdiction for international criminal tribunals.

Furthermore, the court deemed the matter a jurisdictional question, which the court may address on its own at any point, rather a question of the merits of the case, which is waived if not raised by the defendants. The Second Circuit’s holding created a split among the circuits, as the Eleventh Circuit has held that corporations can be held liable under ATS just like any private party. The issue of corporate liability under the ATS is also pending in the D.C., Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.

The Supreme Court will also hear argument in the related case of Mohamad v. Rajoun. In that case, the family of a U.S. citizen, who allegedly died of injuries sustained during torture by officers of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, sued under the 1991 Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that the TVPA – which establishes the civil liability of “individuals” – applies only to natural persons, not to organizations. If the Supreme Court affirms the lower courts’ decisions in favor of the defendants in each of these cases, it will allow corporations and other organizations to act with impunity to perpetrate crimes against humanity.

In an op-ed last Friday, three former federal judges criticized Congressional attempts to “overmilitarize” America’s counterterrorism efforts.

Former D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge and AFJ Champion of Justice Honoree Abner Mikva, former District Court Judge for the Western District of Texas William Sessions, and former Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John Gibbons argue that legislation pending in Congress undermines the fundamental role of our nation’s courts by giving the power of “judge, jury and jailer” to the U.S. military.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which has passed the House and is awaiting a vote in the Senate, includes provisions that would codify the practice of indefinitely detaining terrorist suspects without charges. The bill would be applicable to anyone – even U.S. citizens – detained in anti-terrorist efforts anywhere in the world, including on U.S. soil.

The group of judges emphasized the fact that the criminal justice system, rather than military commissions, is best equipped to handle terrorism cases, and has the most experience doing so. While civilian courts have the benefit of hundreds of terrorism-related trials, military commissions, such as the one at Guantanamo Bay, have handled few such trials and are plagued by constitutional problems. The judges concluded by calling on President Obama and Congress “to support a policy for detention and trial of suspected terrorists that is consistent with our Constitution and maintains the use of our traditional criminal justice system to combat terrorism.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) have submitted a 64-page letter to the Attorney General of Canada making the factual and legal case for indicting President George W. Bush for torture under the Canadian Criminal Code and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The move comes in advance of Bush’s scheduled October 20 speech at the Surrey Regional Economic Summit in Surrey, British Columbia.

CCR and CCIJ are calling on Canada’s Attorney General to begin a criminal investigation of Bush for his administration’s creation and use of a systematized torture program — a program, they note, that Bush himself has admitted to authorizing and which is supported by ample publicly available evidence. The organizations assert that Bush must be held accountable for actions he ordered and oversaw, including “enforced disappearance and secret detention, exposure to extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation, punching, kicking, isolation in ‘coffin’ cells for prolonged periods, threats of bad treatment, solitary confinement, and forced nudity” of detainees.”

“George Bush has openly admitted that he approved the use of torture against men held in U.S. custody. . . . Despite this admission, no country has been willing to investigate and prosecute Bush’s criminal acts, leaving the victims of his torture policies without any justice or accountability. Canada is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, and has an obligation to investigate Bush for his leadership role in the U.S. torture program. Torturers – even if they are former presidents of the United States – must be held to account and prosecuted. We urge Canada to put an end to impunity for Bush.”

CCIJ Legal Director Matt Eisenbrandt said:

“Canada has a strong legal framework and there is absolutely no ambiguity in our criminal code when it comes to committing or allowing torture. . . . There is grave evidence that former President Bush sanctioned and authorized acts of torture, not only in violation of Canadian laws, but also of international treaties that Canada has ratified. It is therefore clear that our government has both the jurisdiction and the obligation to prosecute Bush should he set foot again on Canadian territory.”

Noting that the United States has refused, so far, to live up to its obligation to hold torturers accountable for their actions under the CAT, CCR and CCIJ requested that Canada abide by its commitments as a signatory to the Convention and hold President Bush liable for his actions.

Alliance for Justice documented the radical justifications for torture in our short film Tortured Law, and continues to advocate for full accountability for those officials in the U.S. government who legitimized torture. AFJ applauds and supports these groups’ efforts to achieve accountability for torture.

The document, along with over 4,000 pages of supporting materials, is available online. To learn more about accountability for torture, visit our webpage [http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/accountability-for-torture/]

Former Vice President Dick Cheney this week released a new memoir, In My Time. Dahlia Lithwick writes compellingly that this memoir is yet another feeble attempt to reignite the debate over whether torture is wise policy, and in so doing, to try to legitimize a patently illegal practice.

This week Dick Cheney invites us all to join him again in a game he likes to play against the rest of us called Tedious Torture Standoff. He continues to assert—this time in his memoir, In My Time—that he has “no regrets” about developing the U.S. torture program, and he continues to argue—as he did this morning on the Today Show—that torturing prisoners is “safe, legal, and effective.” He continues to assert that he would “strongly support” water-boarding if actionable information could be elicited from a prisoner. He even says that different standards apply to torturing Americans and foreigners. Cheney is trying, in short, to draw us back into the same tiresome debate over the efficacy of torture, which is about as compelling as a debate about the efficacy of slavery or Jim Crow laws. Only fools debate whether patently illegal programs “work”—only fools or those who have been legally implicated in designing the programs in the first place.

Ltihwick goes on to observe that by not holding Cheney and the other architects of the torture regime accountable, President Obama has legitimized their behavior and elevated the torture debate. Because he has not been held accountable, Cheney is able to claim that his actions were legal. Addressing the fundamental role accountability plays in the rule of law, Lithwick writes that:

Torture really did become legal after 9/11, and even after it was repudiated—again and again—it will always be legal with regard to Dick Cheney and the others who perpetrated it without consequence. The law wasn’t a hollow symbol after 9/11. It was the only fixed system we had. We can go on pretending that torture is no longer permissible in this country or under international law, but until there are legal consequences for those who order or engage in torture, we will only be pretending. Cheney is the beneficiary of that artifice.

Alliance for Justice documented the radical justifications for torture in our short film Tortured Law, and continues to advocate for full accountability for those officials in the U.S. government who legitimized torture.

On Sunday, an editorial in the New York Times applauded a recent Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which allows two Americans to sue former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others for violating their rights. Alliance for Justice also wrote about the case, focusing on the fact it was a 2-1 decision written by President Obama’s first circuit court nominee, Judge David Hamilton of the Seventh Circuit. In its strongly-worded editorial, the Times explained:

The case is important because it makes clear – for the first time – that government officials can be held accountable for the intentional mistreatment of American citizens, even if that conduct happens in a war zone. (Sadly, there remains no accountability for the abuse, and torture, of foreigners by American jailers and interrogators, which Mr. Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush personally sanctioned.)

In allowing the suit to go forward, the court said the plaintiffs had alleged facts showing “that it is plausible, and not merely speculative, that Secretary Rumsfeld was personally responsible for creating the policies that caused the alleged unconstitutional torture,” and that he “acted with deliberate indifference by not ensuring that the detainees were treated in a humane manner despite his knowledge of widespread detainee mistreatment.”

The court rejected what it called the “unprecedented breadth” of the argument put forward by Mr. Rumsfeld and other defendants — that no government or military employee could ever be sued by American civilians for torture or even murder in a war zone. The court made plain that the wrongdoing alleged “violates the most basic terms of the constitutional compact between our government and the citizens of this country.”

Alliance for Justice applauds the New York Times editorial, as we continue to demand accountability for torture. To learn more about the issue and our efforts, click here.

Judge David Hamilton, an Obama appointee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals who was filibustered by Republicans, cast the deciding vote yesterday in a decision with important implications for torture accountability. The Court ruled 2-1 that a lawsuit against former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by American citizens who claim to have been tortured could proceed. Judge Hamilton’s ruling in Vance v. Rumsfeld makes clear, President Obama’s judges are already having an impact on our country’s jurisprudence.

In the first 30 months of his presidency, Obama has seen 95 judges confirmed – far fewer than the number confirmed by Presidents Clinton and Bush at similar points in their presidencies.

Judge Hamilton filled a seat left vacant when Judge Kenneth Ripple, a Reagan appointee, retired. Prior to joining the Seventh Circuit, Judge Hamilton was a district court judge in the Southern District of Indiana. His stellar record on the bench, in addition to his commitment to ensuring equal justice for all, made him a strong appellate court nominee. Nonetheless, his nomination stalled in the Senate for over eight months, and his confirmation required the Senate’s first judicial filibuster. Hamilton won that vote by a margin of 70-29, and his confirmation by a vote of 59-39 on November 19, 2009. Senator Lugar was the only Republican to vote to confirm him.

Judge Hamilton’s ruling in Vance v. Rumsfeld is a powerful disavowal of the policy that lead to the plaintiffs in Vance being tortured: “The wrongdoing alleged here violates the most basic terms of the constitutional compact between our government and the citizens of this country. … There can be no doubt that the deliberate infliction of such treatment on U.S. citizens, even in a war zone, is unconstitutional.” The Department of Justice had argued that even if everything plaintiffs alleged were true, Rumsfeld was entitled to qualified immunity and could not be sued. Luckily, Judge Hamilton rejected the Obama Administration’s position.

The plaintiffs in Vance are U.S. citizens who were in Iraq to work for Shield Group Security, an Iraqi company providing security services for infrastructure projects. According to reporting by the New York Times, one of the plaintiffs was a whistleblower who reported the company’s suspicious conduct to the FBI, but when the US military raided the company the informant and another employee were mistakenly detained, held for three months, and tortured. They were eventually released without being charged with a crime.

This case isn’t about the rights of an enemy soldier detained on a battlefield with a weapon in his hand. It’s about the rights of brave whistle-blowers who were tortured by bureaucratic mistake.

If you don’t believe the war on terror is migrating into your backyard, this case is confirmation. If you don’t think the state-secrets doctrine will be trotted out to protect the government’s abuse of innocent Americans as well as foreign prisoners, this case proves it. If you worry that “turning the page” means always finding more of the same, this case makes that plain. A country in which nobody is ever really responsible is a country in which nobody is ever truly safe.

The 7th Circuit decision comes on the heels of a district court decision last week also allowing a separate but similar torture claim against former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to go forward. The plaintiff in that case is a civilian employee of an American defense contracting company in Iraq who alleges he was abducted by the American military in 2005, held, and tortured for nine months in a military jail without ever being charged with a crime. In allowing the claim against Rumsfeld to move forward, Judge Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the Constitution protects Americans at home and abroad and that “the court finds no convincing reason that United States citizens in Iraq should or must lose previously-declared substantive due process protections during prolonged detention in a conflict zone abroad.”[1]

Alliance for Justice praises these decisions and continues to demand accountability for torture. These recent court decisions are a step in the right direction to ensuring that our leaders are held accountable for their actions. Learn more about accountability for torture here.

United States District Judge James Gwin has permitted an Army veteran to go forward with a federal suit in the District of Columbia against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for torture, the Seattle Times reports.

The veteran, whose name is undisclosed, was an employee of an American contracting company and translator for the U.S. Marine Corp in the Iraqi province of Anbar. As he was preparing to return home, the military suddenly arrested and imprisoned him for nine months, denying him representation by a lawyer, by the Marines, or by his employer, and without informing his family, who was expecting him home for annual leave. While in prison, he suffered abuse, including being kicked, threatened, and blindfolded during questioning. The Department of Justice accused him of helping give the enemy confidential information and helping the enemy to enter Iraq. However, after months of incarceration and interrogation, the government never formally charged him.

The man’s attorney, Mike Kanovitz, suspects the military of detaining his client to keep him from revealing an important connection he made with a sheik while gathering information in Iraq.

The lawsuit alleges that Secretary Rumsfeld himself made decisions about torture techniques on a case-by-case basis, including the decision to hold this veteran without access to the legal system. This case is one of the few in which a federal judge has allowed a suit against Rumsfeld personally to go forward. Last year, District Judge Wayne Andersen of the Northern District of Illinois held that torture victims Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel could personally sue Rumsfeld for approving the methods used on them. Suing a high-ranking government official has become difficult under the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, which held that a suit against a high-ranking official may only proceed if that official was directly connected with a constitutional rights violation and fully knew that the action was such a violation.

In allowing the suit to proceed, Judge Gwin held that “[t]he court finds no convincing reason that United States citizens in Iraq should or must lose previously declared substantive due process protections during prolonged detention in a conflict zone abroad.”

Thus far, no high-ranking officials have been held accountable for torture. Click here to learn more about accountability for torture.

In a powerful Washington Post op-ed today, Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth reminds us that we cannot truly move forward as a country without holding accountable those officials who authorized and justified torture.

Republicans have continued to engage in “self-serving propaganda” by claiming that torture led us to Osama bin Laden (it didn’t), or that we can’t prosecute terror suspects in civilian courts because (inherently unreliable) evidence seized through torture is inadmissible. In his op-ed today, Roth gives two decisive reasons to reject President Obama’s equivocal “look forward, not backward” approach to torture: without accountability, there is nothing to stop torture from happening again; and not investigating and prosecuting tortures is a violation of our binding obligations under the Geneva Conventions and U.N. Convention against Torture.

Roth’s piece coincides with the release of Getting Away with Torture, a methodical Human Rights Watch Report cataloging, in painful detail, the harsh realities of the torture regime, the legal case for accountability, and what remains to be done. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has failed to enforce the law and prosecute those who now gloat over their authorization of torture. While the investigation assigned to Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham once carried promise, its scope was limited only to personnel on the ground who exceeded authorized interrogation techniques, rather than to those at the top who fabricated new legal doctrines to justify a clearly illegal regime of torture. Even in this severely circumscribed class of roughly one hundred cases, only two will receive a full criminal investigation from the Department of Justice.

The Convention against Torture authorizes universal jurisdiction for punishing war crimes. After waiting for the United States to follow its legal obligations, Spain initiated investigations into Bush Administration officials’ complicity in the torture regime, after its criminal case against Spanish Guantánamo Bay detainees fell apart due to the systematic abuse of prisoners at the American prison facility.

Human Rights Watch has urged the United States to comply with its obligations through a series of targeted recommendations. These include: full pursuit of Department of Justice criminal investigations into post-9/11 interrogation and detention practices; a nonpartisan Congressional commission to use a variety of tools – including the possible appointment of a special prosecutor – to investigate mistreatment of detainees; and ensuring that victims of torture are provided adequate redress as required by the Convention against Torture.

Other countries have gone through a period of soul-searching, during which former government officials were held accountable for serious crimes. Conservatives made a national spectacle with President Clinton’s impeachment for sexual misconduct. It is time that the far more serious offense of legitimizing torture – a clear crime against humanity under binding human rights treaties and domestic law – is brought to justice through the American legal system. Alliance for Justice documented the radical justifications for torture in Tortured Law, and continues to advocate for full accountability for those officials in the U.S. government who legitimized torture.

In 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder directed special prosecutor John Durham to investigate the interrogations of certain detainees, alleged to have been tortured, and to determine whether federal law may have been broken. Durham has been actively investigating these cases – some of which were fatal. Attorney General Holder today announced that a full criminal investigation will be launched into two of those cases, both of which resulted in the death of the detainee. The remaining 99 instances of alleged abuse will be dropped from Durham’s ongoing investigation.

According to Attorney General Holder’s statement:

Mr. Durham has advised me of the results of his investigation, and I have accepted his recommendation to conduct a full criminal investigation regarding the death in custody of two individuals. Those investigations are ongoing. The Department has determined that an expanded criminal investigation of the remaining matters is not warranted.

While AFJ applauds the fact that two of the incidents will be criminally investigated, we continue to believe that accountability must go to the highest levels and include those who crafted the Bush Administration’s torture policy – including the lawyers who twisted the law to justify torture as an acceptable tactic in the so-called war on terror. AFJ has long believed that accountability for torture is necessary to ensure that these gross human rights abuses do not happen again and to restore our country’s reputation as a nation of laws. The AFJ film Tortured Law explores the role government lawyers played in authorizing torture, and calls for a full-scale investigation of those who ordered and justified torture.

Today the Senate confirmed three top Justice Department attorneys after a lengthy delay. James Cole, who has been opposed by Republicans because he supported using civilian courts to try suspected terrorists, was confirmed 55-42 to be Deputy Attorney General. Cole was nominated on May 24, 2010, and was successfully filibustered by Republicans in May of this year. Virginia Seitzwas confirmed on a voice vote to head the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), and she is the first Senate-confirmed OLC head since 2004. Finally, Lisa Monaco was confirmed on a voice vote to lead the National Security Division.

Seitz’s nomination is notable because the OLC is known as the “constitutional conscience” of an administration, offering authoritative opinions on complex and important legal matters about which agencies within the executive branch might disagree, and exercising judgment independent of the political will of the president. However, during the Bush Administration between 2002 and 2007, OLC lawyers such as Jon Yoo and Jay Bybee authorized every interrogation practice proposed by the CIA, even those that many legal experts agree violate our federal laws prohibiting torture and conspiracy to commit torture and war crimes; our constitutional ban on cruel and inhuman treatment; and the Geneva Conventions’ absolute prohibition of torture.

U.S. Attorney John Durham has begun to subpoena witnesses before a grand jury as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged acts of CIA Bush-era torture, according to TIME Magazine. In 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder instructed Durham to investigate approximately 12 instances of interrogation involving torture of suspected terrorists, some of which were fatal.

Although the name of the individual(s) who may be prosecuted remains unknown, TIME reports rumors that CIA interrogator Mark Swanner may be the subject of the prosecution. While pursuing the case marks a positive step towards justice for Bush-era war crimes, Alliance for Justice believes that accountability must extend to the orchestrators of the torture at the highest levels, including the authors of the torture memos, like John Yoo and Jay Bybee.

AFJ has long believed that accountability for torture is necessary to ensure that these gross human rights abuses do not happen again and to restore our country’s reputation as a nation of laws. The AFJ film Tortured Law explores the role government lawyers played in authorizing torture, and calls for a full-scale investigation of those who ordered and justified torture.

Saleh v. Titan, a class action lawsuit against two corporate government contractors filed on behalf of over 250 alleged Abu Ghraib torture victims, is currently awaiting Supreme Court review.

The named plaintiff, Haidar Saleh, was tortured by Saddam Hussein at the Abu Ghraib prison, fled to the United States, repatriated to Iraq at the encouragement of the U.S. government after Hussein’s downfall, and in a cruel twist of fate was subsequently detained and tortured by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib. This lawsuit sought to hold Titan Corporation and CACI International Inc. liable for providing interrogation and translation services which contributed the plaintiff’s abuse.

In 2009, a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed all claims against both defendants, including causes of action under state tort law and the federal Alien Tort Statute. After the plaintiffs filed a writ of certiorari in 2010, the Supreme Court invited the government to weigh in with a brief expressing the federal government’s position.

Unfortunately, on May 27, the government’s brief urged the Supreme Court to decline to consider the appeal. While the brief detailed the abuses the plaintiffs suffered and characterized the Circuit Court’s holding as “unclear and imprecise and… potentially misguided,” the government nonetheless urged the Supreme Court to decline to hear the case until a split develops among circuit courts. Given the important question involved – whether private contractors who participate and contribute to abuse and torture are immune from liability – victims of torture and abuse should have their day before the Court.

The plaintiffs are represented by Katherine Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Susan L. Burke and Katherine Hawkins of Burke LLC, and Shereef Akeel, of Akeel & Valentine, PLC.

Yesterday, the Constitution Project, a non-profit think tank focused on building bipartisan consensus on pressing constitutional questions, hosted an panel discussion on the detention of terrorism suspects. From the government’s misuse of the Material Witness Statute to holding Guantanamo Bay detainees on limited evidence, the United States’ detention policies have spurred political, constitutional, and judicial debates.

This term’s Supreme Court case Ashcroft v. al-Kidd directly challenges the status quo of U.S. detention policy. Central to Mr. al-Kidd’s case is the Material Witness Statute, which allows the government to detain someone with material evidence to another case. The lower courts have ruled in favor of al-Kidd, however the Supreme Court will make the final judgment. In the wake of 9/11, the use of Material Witness warrants to detain terrorist suspects increased substantially. However, out of the 70 Material Witnesses detained, only half had been called to testify. According to Lee Gelernt, Deputy Director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigration Rights Project and Mr. al-Kidd’s counsel, the Material Witness Statute is being used as a preventative detention tool.

In order to detain people the government lacked sufficient evidence to arrest, the Material Witness Statue has served as a preventative detention tool – allowing law enforcement to detain and investigate persons who they otherwise could not. Mr. al-Kidd, an American citizen, was detained while attempting to leave the country for Saudi Arabia on an academic scholarship. According to the government, al-Kidd was a terrorist suspect because of his association with an Idaho-based Muslim charity whose leader had also been detained by the FBI. However, concerns surrounding the affidavit the FBI used to detain al-Kidd reveal false statements about the plaintiff. Nonetheless, he was held in extremely restrictive conditions, subject to strip searches, shackling and 24-hour exposure to sunlight for over two weeks. He was released after 16 days and was never called as a witness.

The Supreme Court of the United States is now determining whether the Material Witness Statute can be employed to preventatively detain suspects. According to Gelernt, preventative detention is extremely dangerous given the implications it has for innocent people like al-Kidd. The Obama Administration has actively urged the Court to validate the manner in which the statute has been applied.

The Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that kicked out of court a lawsuit claiming that the victim had been tortured. The Ninth Circuit en banc panel voted 6-5 to dismiss the case, upholding an assertion of the state secrets privilege, first raised by the Bush Administration and now by the Obama Administration, that the need to protect state secrets trumps the ability of former prisoners to sue over alleged torture.

The ruling is another blow to accountability for torture that took place under the Bush Administration. According to the New York Times,

“The lawsuit was brought in 2007 against a Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan,that the plaintiffs said had arranged the rendition flights that took them toMorocco, Egypt and Afghanistan to be tortured. One of the men, Binyam Mohamed,had his bones broken in Morocco, where security agents also cut his skin with ascalpel and poured a stinging liquid into his wounds.”

The 9th Circuit opinion, which will remain in effect now that the Supreme Court has denied cert, “reluctantly” concluded that state secrets trump the “fundamental principles of our liberty, including justice, transparency, and accountability” in this case. Notably, the 9th Circuit’s decision held that the claims could not proceed “even assuming plaintiffs could establish their case solely through nonprivileged evidence.”

Alliance for Justice joined a letter signed by 20 other groups calling on the Department of Justice to implement a policy, as it promised, to ensure that there is transparency and accountability in cases like this where credible assertions of government wrongdoing have been raised. The Attorney General announced a policy in 2009 whereby DOJ would make referrals to the inspectors general of the CIA, DOJ, Defense Department, or other appropriate agency, when a civil complaint dismissed on state secrets grounds raised credible allegations of wrongdoing. When the judicial system fails to provide accountability and transparency by allowing cases to be dismissed on state secrets grounds, requiring an inspector general to investigate the allegations would provide some modicum of accountability.

William Yeomans offers some great insight and analysis into the renewed debate over torture in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death:

The unity and pride inspired by the killing of Osama Bin Laden has quickly deteriorated into a nasty debate over the effectiveness of torture.

The administration is reportedly upset by this diversion. But President Barack Obama has nobody to blame but himself.

While President George W. Bush took the nation down the dark path to torture, Obama ensured that it remained part of our national debate by failing to investigate and hold to account those who tortured.

His failure to do so means that we now debate publicly whether or not to torture based on assessments of whether or not torture is effective – a question relevant only if we accept that effective torture is justified. Torture, it seems, is no longer immoral or unlawful so long as it works.

The current debate offers occasion to consider the distance we have covered in legitimating torture. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan — no national security softy — signed the U.N. Convention Against Torture. In his signing statement, Reagan denounced torture as an “abhorrent” practice and emphasized the need for universal jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who engaged in torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading practices.

The convention, later ratified by the Senate, obligates nations to prosecute treaty violators. At the time, it was unthinkable that the United States – the world’s beacon for human rights — would make use of torture and cruel practices official policy. Indeed, Congress passed legislation to make torture a criminal offense.

In a strong editorial today, the New York Times effectively buries the argument that Osama bin Laden’s death in some way vindicates the torture apologists of the Bush Administration:

Even if it were true that some tidbit was blurted out by a prisoner while being tormented by C.I.A. interrogators, that does not remotely justify Mr. Bush’s decision to violate the law and any acceptable moral standard.

This was not the “ticking time bomb” scenario that Bush-era officials often invoked to rationalize abusive interrogations. If, as Representative Peter King, the Long Island Republican, said, information from abused prisoners “directly led” to the redoubt, why didn’t the Bush administration follow that trail years ago?

Calling torture “immoral and illegal and counterproductive,” the Times repeats the fact that, no matter what the apologists are now claiming, there’s no reason to believe that bin Laden was discovered because of information obtained via torture.

The fact is that, as reported yesterday, torture “played a small role at most” in intelligence gathering. And even if effective, time-sensitive, and accurate intelligence had been obtained through torture, it still would do nothing to remove the ethical stain from the act.

The architects of the Bush Justice Department’s “Torture Memos” have wasted little time in claiming that their endorsement of torture helped pave the way for the successful assault on Osama bin Laden’s final hiding place in Pakistan.

Among them was John Yoo, a former Justice Department official who wrote secret legal memorandums justifying brutal interrogations. “President Obama can take credit, rightfully, for the success today,” Mr. Yoo wrote Monday in National Review, “but he owes it to the tough decisions taken by the Bush administration.”

Many — including Alliance for Justice — have called for Yoo to face professional and legal consequences for his twisting of the law to justify the Bush Administration’s use of torture. It’s hardly surprising that Yoo would take this opportunity to rush to his own defense.

However, the New York Times reports that “harsh interrogations played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out.”

It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.

As he was when he authored the Torture Memos, John Yoo is wrong about the use of torture in finding Osama bin Laden. He and other torture apologists saw this instance as their last, best hope for justifying the ethically and morally repulsive policies of torture, but their arguments fall flat on basic facts and basic morality.

Click here to read the New York Times story on the revived torture debate and the intelligence used to track bin Laden.

In addition, according to former Bush Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, torture apparently played no role in the intelligence that led to Osama bin Laden’s death. In an interview yesterday, Rumsfeld made clear that the information that led to bin Laden’s death was obtained through “normal interrogation approaches,” and not through “harsh treatment” or waterboarding.

That retreat was a victory for Congressional pandering and an embarrassment for the Obama administration, which failed to stand up to it.

The wound inflicted on New York City from Mr. Mohammed’s plot nearly a decade ago will not heal for many lifetimes, yet the city, while still grieving, has thrived. How fitting it would have been to put the plot’s architect on trial a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center, to force him to submit to the justice of a dozen chosen New Yorkers, to demonstrate to the world that we will not allow fear of terrorism to alter our rule of law.

But, apparently, there are many who continue to cower, who view terrorists as much more fearsome than homegrown American mass murderers and the American civilian jury system as too “soft” to impose needed justice. The administration of George W. Bush encouraged this view for more than seven years, spreading a notion that terror suspects only could be safely held and tried far from our shores at Guantánamo and brought nowhere near an American courthouse. The federal courts have, in fact, convicted hundreds of terrorists since 9/11. And federal prisons safely hold more than 350 of them.

Today’s Washington Post features an editorial urging the Supreme Court to side with the former Attorney General in the case of Ashcroft vs. al-Kidd. Abdullah al-Kidd, a natural-born American citizen, was detained for more than two weeks under false pretenses as a “material witness,” without access to legal counsel. He was never charged with a crime, or called to testify as a witness against anyone else.

The Post and others have said that Ashcroft was justified in ordering the detention of an American citizen under a “material witness” warrant, and then holding and interrogating him for more than two weeks without counsel.

Here’s how the government treated this “material witness:”

Mr. Kidd was detained as a “witness” in a case a month after the indictment was issued, and a full year before the trial was to begin.

He was released from detention long before the trial began, and was never called as a witness.

During his detention, he was repeatedly strip-searched, interrogated, and kept in a lighted cell to interfere with his sleep.

During his previous — cooperative — interviews with the FBI, Mr. Kidd was never asked or told to be available as a witness.

It’s hard to see how the Washington Post could examine those facts and come to any conclusion other than the one reached by Mr. Kidd: that the government never intended to use him as a witness, and so detained him under false pretenses.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week in Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, a case concerning an American citizen detained for more than two weeks in harsh conditions on the specious grounds that he was a material witness.

Abdullah Al-Kidd is an American-born United States citizen and convert to Islam who lives in Idaho. The FBI targeted Al-Kidd and his wife for surveillance and interviews during a broad terrorism investigation in the state following the attacks of September 11, 2001. The investigation revealed no evidence of wrongdoing by Al-Kidd or his wife. However, FBI agents arrested him on a material witness warrant related to an investigation of another person, and took him into custody. Following several interrogations without counsel, Al-Kidd was held for 15 nights in jails in three states with hardened criminals, and transported aboard a “Con Air” flight in which he was held in full shackles. He was never used as a material witness – the pretext under which he was originally arrested.

Al-Kidd sued former Attorney General John Ashcroft for ordering his wrongful detention. He argues that neither the absolute nor qualified immunity sometimes afforded government officials is appropriate in this case because Ashcroft’s use of a material witness warrant was merely a pretext to submit Al-Kidd to preventative detention. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Al-Kidd and Ashcroft appealed the decision.

If the Supreme Court rules in Ashcroft’s favor, it will enable government officials to circumvent fundamental constitutional protections by detaining individuals indefinitely without access to an attorney simply by claiming they are needed as material witnesses.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), an Alliance for Justice member organization, and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) yesterday released a 42-page indictment [PDF link] against President Bush, making the case for his indictment under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

The groups had planned to file the document as an individual criminal complaint with the Swiss authorities in anticipation of the former president’s trip to Switzerland, but did not do so due to Bush canceling his trip the night before the complaint was to be filed. Instead, the groups released the document as an “indictment,” modifiable for future use in other countries. The document sets forth the “fundamental aspects of the case against him, and a preliminary legal analysis of liability for torture, and a response to anticipated defenses.”

It was recently announced that President Bush has canceled his upcoming trip February 12 trip to Switzerland, following a request by human rights organizations that the Swiss Justice Ministry open a criminal investigation into the former president based on his recent admission that he ordered the waterboarding of terrorist suspects. The groups argued that under the UN Convention Against Torture and domestic law, Swiss authorities were obligated to undertake investigation into acts of torture ordered by any individual on Swiss territory – including heads of state.

Despite the extensive documentation that senior Bush administration orchestrated, ordered, and justified torture – including President Bush’s admission in his recent memoir, the United States has yet to undertake any effort to hold these officials accountable. AFJ’s short film, Tortured Law, examines the role that Office of Legal Counsel lawyers played in authorizing torture and calls for a full-scale investigation into their actions by the Department of Justice. The Alliance for Justice believes that accountability is essential to regaining our nation’s stature as a leader in promoting human rights and the rule of law, as well as to ensuring that this sort of miscarriage of justice never recurs.

Last week, we told you about new developments in a legal case involving the destruction of tapes that could have been used to investigate the abusive detention policies and torture used by the United States government:

Department of Justice prosecutor John Durham may soon be called into court to address his handling of the investigation into the destruction of CIA tapes documenting torture. Durham let the statute of limitations expire in November, 2010 without issuing criminal indictments. The ACLU is involved in a public records lawsuit before Judge Alvin Hellerstein, the judge who ordered the CIA not to destroy the tapes in 2004. Hellerstein expressed interest in bringing Durham in to address the court.

The New York Times ran an editorial today calling for some measure of accountability in the CIA’s destruction of the torture tapes. Too many people who advocated, justified, used, and covered up detention abuses and torture have been allowed to escape legal consequences. The Times editorial argues that the tape destruction offers a significant chance for the justice system to begin reaffirming the notion that no person or agency is above the law:

The C.I.A.’s decision to destroy the tapes — rather than submit them to the judge for a decision on whether to order their public release — was a serious affront to the court and the rule of law. A contempt order is not a perfect remedy, but it would at least provide some official acknowledgment that what the C.I.A. did was wrong.

Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement yesterday announcing the creation of a new Professional Misconduct Review Unit within the Department of Justice. The Unit will be tasked with handling DOJ attorney disciplinary actions that result from investigations by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Holder’s stated goal in creating the Unit is to ensure “consistent, fair, and timely resolution” of allegations of misconduct – a laudable standard.

Had this Unit been in place during DOJ’s investigation into the architects of the torture memos, we wonder if the outcome would have been different.

Following the conclusion of a five-year investigation by OPR into the authors of the torture memos, David Margolis, a career attorney with DOJ, was allowed to intervene and interfere with the OPR report’s conclusions. The OPR report concluded that John Yoo and Jay Bybee recklessly violated two rules of professional conduct, triggering a mandatory referral to the attorneys’ state bar associations for potential disciplinary action. But before the final report was released in February 2010, Margolis downgraded the findings and determined that Yoo and Bybee had only exercised “poor judgment” – not professional misconduct. As a result, more than eight years after the torture memos were written, the lawyers who crafted a scheme to torture people in U.S. custody have still not been held accountable for their actions.

The Blog of Legal Times reported yesterday that Department of Justice prosecutor John Durham may soon be called into court to address his handling of the investigation into the destruction of CIA tapes documenting torture. Durham let the statute of limitations expire in November, 2010 without issuing criminal indictments. The ACLU is involved in a public records lawsuit before Judge Alvin Hellerstein, the judge who ordered the CIA not to destroy the tapes in 2004. Hellerstein expressed interest in bringing Durham in to address the court.

Durham is still involved in investigating CIA interrogation of detainees alleged to have been abusive and in some cases fatal. Though the parameters of Durham’s investigation are unknown, it is thought that it may extend to include Bush Administration officials, including the authors of the torture memos, including John Yoo and Jay Bybee.

The Supreme Court will hear two consolidated cases today concerning the ability of the federal government to invoke the state secrets privilege in court. The court’s ruling could have profound implications for judicial oversight of executive branch actions in a wide range of cases, including those related to torture allegations.

In General Dynamics Corp. v. United States and The Boeing Company v. United States, the federal government terminated defense contracts based on projected scheduling delays, which exposed the contractors to severe penalties. The contractors argued that they breached their contracts because the government failed to provide information that they needed to fulfill their obligations. In response, the government invoked the state secrets privilege and claimed that allowing the contractors to proceed with their defense would expose government secrets to the public. The contractors argue that the government should not be able to win a default judgment against a private party by invoking the state secrets privilege to deprive the party of its defense.

If the Supreme Court allows the government to pick and choose which evidence can be used against it, private citizens will face an unfair playing field. Worse, by allowing the government to assert the privilege so broadly, the Court would continue a pattern of eliminating judicial review of executive branch actions. Judicial oversight over the executive branch is particularly important for ensuring that national security concerns are not allowed to ride roughshod over our nation’s civil liberties.

As the Washington Post describes in an editorial, broad interpretations of the state secrets privilege have already resulted in the early dismissal of lawsuits by those who were tortured as part of the government’s detention and interrogation program, ensuring that officials who authorized torture are not held accountable for their actions. Alliance for Justice has advocated for torture accountability and believes that the lawyers who justified torture must be held responsible.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral argument in the case of Ali v. Rumsfeld. That suit is being brought by nine Iraqi and Afghan men who allege they were tortured by United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan before being released without charge. ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang argued the case on behalf of the plaintiffs.

One of the judges on the panel, Reagan appointee Judge David Sentelle, seemed convinced that earlier precedent precluded the panel from finding for the plaintiffs. Telegraphing his intention to rule against the plaintiffs, Judge Sentelle told the Department of Justice lawyer defending the case that he need not make oral argument.

The case was dismissed by District Court Judge Thomas Hogan in March of 2007. Judge Hogan’s opinion referred to the case as “appalling” and as raising “horrible torture allegations.” He noted that “the facts alleged in the complaint stand as an indictment of the humanity with which the United States treats its detainees.” Nonetheless, Judge Hogan ruled that constitutional protections do not extend to nonresident aliens, and that Rumsfeld and other Bush Administration officials were immune from liability.

It is widely expected that the three-judge panel will affirm Judge Hogan’s dismissal of the claim. Dan Froomkin with the Huffington Post has more details about the case here.

Alliance for Justice remains concerned that yet again, high-level officials who authorized and justified torture have been let off the hook and will not be held to account for their actions. AFJ’s short film Tortured Law highlights the role that Office of Legal Counsel lawyers played in crafting the detention and interrogation program, and calls for a full-scale investigation into the authors of the “torture memos.”

Alliance for Justice ally Human Rights First has issued a report card, “Assessing the Obama Administration’s Record of Compliance with the Rule of Law and Human Rights in National Security Policy.” While the report gives President Obama an A- for standing firm against the use of torture, it gives the president a failing grade on accountability for torture. The report card notes that the failure to provide accountability for torture “is a violation of international law and diminishes the credibility of the United States as standard-bearer for human rights worldwide.”

The report card also looks at other policy areas, including: standing firm against secret detention sites; closing the Guantanamo Bay prison; transferring GTMO detainees cleared for release; trying suspects in federal court; ending the use of military commissions; ending indefinite detention; stopping the abuse of the state secrets privilege; providing due process in Afghanistan; providing accountability and oversight of security contractors; ensuring transparency and lawfulness in the use of targeted killings; and reigning in the use of extraordinary rendition.

The report concludes with eight recommendations the Administration should act upon to ensure that the rule of law and human rights are protected. A PDF of the report card is available for download here. Below are excerpts from the report card pertaining to torture:

Grade: A-

Standing Firm Against Use of Torture and Detainee Abuse. The Obama Administration clearly denounced policies of torture and detainee abuse and reinforced the primacy of the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of prisoners. The administration established a High Value Interrogation Group to ensure effective interrogation of detainees using lawful interrogation methods. There remain legitimate concerns about various interrogation techniques that are permitted by Appendix M of the Army Field Manual that are inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions requirement of humane treatment.

Grade: F

Accountability for Torture. Torture and conspiracy to commit torture are felonies under U.S. law. Yet the United States has failed to hold accountable those who authorized and perpetrated torture against prisoners in U.S. custody. In November 2010, the Justice Department announced that there would be no prosecutions for destruction of CIA tapes that allegedly recorded acts of torture committed by employees or agents of the United States. Special Prosecutor John Durham has yet to release his report on the investigation into whether crimes were committed by U.S. officials during any interrogations that included “enhanced interrogation techniques,” such as waterboarding, a well-known form of torture. The failure to hold accountable those responsible for acts of torture and to provide redress to victims (see “State Secrets” below) is a violation of international law and diminishes the credibility of the United States as standard-bearer for human rights worldwide.

AFJ has long believed that accountability for torture is necessary to ensure that these gross human rights abuses do not happen again and to restore our country’s reputation as a nation of laws. The AFJ film Tortured Law explores the role government lawyers played in authorizing torture, and calls for a full-scale investigation of those who ordered and justified torture.

On January 11, 2002, 20 captives from the war in Afghanistan were brought to the Guantánamo Bay detention camp and one of the most ignominious chapters in our nation’s history began. On January 11 of this year, after nine years, over 170 are still there, making a mockery of fundamental principles of American justice and the rule of law.

The abuses of Guantánamo are well documented and Alliance for Justice has signed a letter with over 100 other organizations calling for the detention center to be closed and for the Obama Administration to either charge or release the prisoners held there.

Critically, the letter also calls for accountability for the crimes committed against detainees in Guantánamo or elsewhere, including torture and other violations of human rights. It is startling that in spite of significant documentation of the unconscionable and illegal abuse of prisoners, not a single American official has been held publically accountable or referred to a grand jury for prosecution. It is a sad day for the rule of law when former President George Bush can go on national television and admit to authorizing torture in direct contravention to American and international law, and not feel the slightest compunction about doing so.

We remain particularly disturbed that the lawyers who authored memoranda authorizing torture, and whose actions can only be described as a willful perversion of well-established legal principles, have escaped personal or professional responsibility for their actions. For example, John Yoo is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Jay Bybee was given a lifetime appointment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. No formal action has been taken by any official entity, including the Justice Department or a court of law, to hold any of them accountable or to definitively refute the theories they propounded in the memos, which sought to manufacture a legal framework to justify Bush Administration crimes.

The anniversary we mark with sadness today is a reminder of the fragility of the rule of law and of what is at stake when that principle is ignored. It’s not too late to hold accountable many of the architects of the brutal and illegal policies of the Bush Administration. The Justice Department should appoint an independent prosecutor with a mandate to investigate torture and other crimes and to establish once and for all that we are a nation of laws and that no one is exempt from obeying them, not even the most powerful among us.

As the Guantánamo Bay detention camp enters its tenth year, not only does the fate of the remaining prisoners hang in the balance, so too do the integrity of our legal system and the soul of our nation.

Representative John Conyers (D-Mich.) yesterday called on President Obama to investigate and prosecute Bush officials who authorized torture. Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, presided over a hearing on “Civil Liberties and National Security.” Conyers noted that President Obama has made some positive steps, such as banning torture and the use of secret “black sites,” but called on the President to investigate those who approved or ordered crimes such as torture and waterboarding.

Representative Conyers noted that such an investigation should include those who were responsible for the decision to authorize torture – including President Bush, who as Conyers noted, “has admitted personally approving these crimes.” In his recent memoir, Decision Points, Bush admits authorizing torture (“damn right”) and suggests that he was justified in doing so because his lawyers told him it was okay – a defense that has been discredited since Nuremberg.

Conyers noted that not only has our government failed to conduct an investigation into torture, it has also worked to “squelch” other countries’ investigations.

The recently released Wikileaks cables revealed that the Bush Administration exerted pressure on the German government to drop planned prosecutions of CIA agents involved in the torture and rendition of a German citizen. As recently as 2009, government officials have interfered with Spanish efforts to prosecute high-ranking Bush officials, including the infamous “torture memo” authors John Yoo and Jay Bybee. The cables indicate that the U.S. warned that continuing with the prosecution would “harm bilateral relations,” and the U.S. Embassy in Madrid interfered with the judicial process by trying to steer the case toward sympathetic magistrates.

Conyers was also critical of the repeated use of the state secrets privilege to block suits involving torture, rendition, and illegal domestic surveillance, preventing many key details about the interrogation and rendition program from being made public.

Other witnesses who testified at the hearing include Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU’s Legislative Office; Bruce Fein, associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration; Thomas Pickering, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Michael Lewis, law professor at Ohio Northern University Pettit School of Law; trial attorney Jamil Jaffer; and Nation reporter Jeremy Scahill.

This week, along with the spectacle of former President George W. Bush bragging on national television about authorizing torture, federal prosecutor John H. Durham allowed the statute of limitations to expire without pressing charges against C.I.A. agents and attorneys who participated in the destruction of videotapes chronicling the interrogations and mistreatment of Abu Zubaydah and Abd a-Rahim al-Nashiri.

Alliance for Justice is extremely disappointed that once again no one in the United States government is being held accountable for criminal acts undertaken as part of the Bush Administration’s policy of abusing and torturing prisoners. The decision by Mr. Durham not to prosecute C.I.A. officials who destroyed evidence of detainee mistreatment is yet another example of the government officials involved in torture and other illegal conduct being given a free pass for their actions. We believe that Mr. Durham owes the country an explanation and should release a report of his findings and publicly explain the reasoning for his decision to allow C.I.A. officials off the hook.

Mr. Durham’s decision is particularly disturbing in light of the admission this week by George W. Bush that he willingly authorized torture and that his actions were acceptable because a lawyer told him he could do it. Since Nuremburg, the world has understood that lawyers cannot provide immunity for crimes against humanity. We have also come to understand that the lawyers who enable such crimes themselves violate the law and can be prosecuted, whether they work for the Department of Justice or the C.I.A. Each time our government fails to face up to the crimes of its leaders, the United States slips further toward lawlessness and diminishes its hard-won ability to lead the world toward respect for the rule of law and human rights.

In light of President Bush’s admissions and with abundant evidence available of egregious and criminal behavior, John Durham and the Justice Department must accelerate and intensify the investigation into the Bush Administration’s illegal torture practices. It is long past time for the Obama Administration to take seriously its commitment to uphold the law of the land and bring to justice both the senior leaders who authorized torture and the lawyers who served as their enablers. To do otherwise makes a mockery of the men and women of the military, who, since George Washington, have treated prisoners humanely and of our long-professed belief that the rule of law should guide the world.

The Robert Jackson Steering Committee (RJSC) announced today that it has filed an appeal asking the Department of Justice to be more candid in its disclosures regarding the whitewashed Office of Professional Responsibility report into the lawyers who authored memos used by the Bush Administration’s Justice Department to justify torture. RJSC filed a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) in January, seeking information related to the Department of Justice’s downgrading of the findings contained in the OPR report. DOJ supplied documents with heavy redactions, which RJSC believes were designed to insulate senior officials from criminal liability. They have submitted an appeal requesting fuller compliance with FOIA.

The 267-page OPR report about the “torture memo” authors was released in February, 2010, after a five-year investigation into the conduct of three former senior lawyers in DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) – Professor John Yoo, now-Judge Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury. The report was revised to clear Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury of any wrongdoing. An earlier draft of the report concluded that Yoo and Bybee violated their professional responsibilities in drafting the most infamous 2002 “torture memo,” but, Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis softened the report to conclude only that they showed “poor judgment.” Under DOJ rules, “poor judgment” does not amount to professional misconduct and therefore does not trigger a referral to state bar associations for disciplinary review or, in the case of Judge Bybee, a recommendation for an impeachment inquiry.

AFJ’s film Tortured Law explains in further detail the role that Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury played in authorizing torture, and highlights the need for accountability.The OPR report revealed new information about the Bush Administration’s decision to condone torture, and showed the need for a full-scale investigation into what led our country to torture. OPR’s investigation uncovered new evidence that begins to fill in the historical record, but the facts documented in the OPR report are just the newest pieces of a puzzle that still warrants a full investigation. Because OPR only has jurisdiction over DOJ attorneys and lacks subpoena power to compel witness cooperation or document production, OPR’s review of the legal work that produced the first “torture memos” was just a first step towards accountability.

Congress should reassert its oversight role and conduct further hearings about the development of torture policy in DOJ and other government agencies. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the OPR report in the spring, now the House should follow suit by holding a full hearing on the OPR report in which they question the authors of the “torture memos” as well as other players mentioned in the OPR report (including those such as John Ashcroft, who refused to voluntarily comply with the OPR investigators) about the interactions between DOJ, CIA, Department of Defense, and the White House in developing torture policy.

In a sharply divided decision on Wednesday in Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 6-5 to dismiss the case, upholding an assertion of the state secrets privilege, first raised by the Bush Administration and now by the Obama Administration, that the need to protect state secrets trumps the ability of former prisoners to sue over alleged torture.

The ruling is another blow to accountability for torture that took place under the Bush Administration. According to the New York Times,

“The lawsuit was brought in 2007 against a Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan,that the plaintiffs said had arranged the rendition flights that took them toMorocco, Egypt and Afghanistan to be tortured. One of the men, Binyam Mohamed,had his bones broken in Morocco, where security agents also cut his skin with ascalpel and poured a stinging liquid into his wounds.”

In the majority opinion, the 9th Circuit states that it “reluctantly” concludes that state secrets trump the “fundamental principles of our liberty, including justice, transparency, and accountability” in this case. Notably, the 9th Circuit’s decision held that the claims could not proceed “even assuming plaintiffs could establish their case solely through nonprivileged evidence.” The ACLU, which brought the case has vowed to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but the decision by the 9th Circuit is a serious blow.

Ben Wizner, the ACLU staff attorney who argued the case stated, “This is a sad day not only for the torture victims whose attempt to seek justice has been extinguished, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation’s reputation in the world.”

Last fall, Alliance for Justice released the documentary, Tortured Law, to examine the role government lawyers played in authorizing torture. These lawyers have not been held accountable, and the Obama Administration is continuing policies that candidate Obama campaigned against in 2008.

There are still avenues for promoting transparency and accountability, as Ronald Goldfarb’s recent post on The Hill demonstrates, but we must hold Congress and this Administration to their promise of change.

On Friday, June 25th, the Alliance for Justice is cosponsoring a panel discussion focused on ending U.S. sponsored torture and marking the United Nation’s International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. The event will be moderated by Jim Winkler, who is the General Secretary of the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, and will feature the following speakers: David Cole, JD (Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center), Sr. Dianne Ortiz (DC office director of Pax Christi USA a torture survivor), Sondra Crosby, MD (Assistant Professor of Medicine and Boston University School of Medicine) and Matthew Alexander (Author of How to Break a Terrorist and former senior interrogator of the United States Air Force). RSVP for the event, Accountability Now – Ending Torture Forever.

The informative event will also feature clips from AFJ’s film Tortured Law, and a large group of torture survivors will be present to participate in small group discussions following the panel.

Another one of the cosponsors of the event is AFJ member organization, Physicians for Human Rights. Their recently released report “Experiments in Torture” is the first report to reveal evidence indicating that CIA medical personnel allegedly engaged in the crime of illegal experimentation after 9/11, in addition to the previously disclosed crime of torture. They have since filed a complaint to the Office of Human Research Protections demanding there be an investigation in regards to the CIA’s possible experimentation on detainees. If the complaint is proven to be accurate, the torture and experimentation will have violated the Geneva Conventions, Common Rule, and other international and domestic policies in regard to human experimentation. The Alliance for Justice has signed on to this petition and urges AFJ supporter’s to take action now by joining the OHRP complaint.

The Alliance for Justice has been working on accountability for torture for years, and most recently honored the cast and crew of Law and Order for their remarkable depiction of the “torture memos” from the Bush administration in “Memo from the Dark Side” at our annual luncheon. Watch the video from the event.

We are proud to announce that Alliance for Justice’s short documentary Tortured Law has been selected as a finalist at the Humboldt Film Festival! Our thanks to the dedicated organizers from the Humboldt Film Festival, the oldest student-run film festival in the world.

Alliance for Justice is proud to advocate for accountability for those who crafted US torture policy, and excited to share this crucial issue with the Humboldt audience. Add your voice to the call for accountability: sign our petition to investigate the torture memos, and to investigate the emails missing from the OPR report.

Last night, Alliance for Justice proudly partnered with Culture Project and Theaters Against War to bring Tortured Law: An Evening of Art and Activism to New York City’s JudsonMemorialChurch.

Following a screening of AFJs short documentary Tortured Law, Theaters Against War performed a live theater piece, DENIED, detailing the ongoing legal struggle to free Fahad Hashmi. Since his extradition from Britain to the United States in May 2007, Fahad has been held in solitary confinement without trial. For the entirety of his confinement in the United States, Fahad has been subject to restrictive Special Administrative Measures, which limit his contact with family to one visit weekly, keep him on lockdown for 23 hours a day, and allow him to read only censored news one month after its publication.

Later in the evening, AFJ President Nan Aron discussed the Office of Professional Responsibility report about the “torture memo” authors, and the investigation into John Yoo’s missing emails. Nan then moderated an outstanding panel featuring: former Air Force interrogator and author Matthew Alexander; Yale Law School Professor Hope Metcalf, who serves as counsel to Jose Padilla; Professor of Political Science and civil rights author Jeanne Theoharis; and Center for Constitutional Rights Executive Director Vincent Warren. The panel drew on diverse experiences for a candid, interactive, discussion with the audience about the effects of torture and indefinite detentions on American safety and civil liberties.

We are pleased to announce that Alliance for Justice original film Tortured Lawreceived an Honorable Mention at the Very Short Movies Fest.Thanksto the staff at VSM Cinema! Tortured Law should appear on http://vsmcinema.com within the month.

AFJ is proud to advocate for transparency and accountability, and delighted that VSM has recognized the importance of the issue. Help the growing call for accountability:watchTortured Law orhost a screening.

A year after President Obama signed Executive Orders ending torture and ordering the closure of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in the wake of the attempted Christmas Day bombing, four retired generals gathered today to reiterate their support for the lawful treatment of suspected terrorists and the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

Representing a group of 33 retired generals and admirals with diverse and distinguished military careers, the generals stated that torture, military commissions, and Guantanamo undermine national security and American values. The group spoke at the National Press Club in a discussion hosted by Human Rights First.

The group has been outspoken on these issues, lobbying in many outlets for the closure of Guantanamo, the lawful treatment of detainees, and the trial of detainees in federal court.

Torture is not only unlawful and immoral under US law and values. Torture undermines security efforts. It fails to produce reliable, actionable intelligence. Instead, it soils our reputation abroad and provides enemies of the United States with effective propaganda. Guantanamo provides an apt symbol of previous torture by US officials and must be closed, both to speed our return to the rule of law and to aid our national security efforts. As former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Harry Soyster pointed out today, intelligence gathering relies on informants abroad who trust that detainees will be treated humanely.

Retired military judge and Brigadier General James Cullen pointed out, the United States justice system has proved successful in trying, convicting, and imprisoning terrorists. 195 international terrorists were convicted in US federal courts between 9/11 and July 2009; 355 domestic and international terrorists are currently held in US prisons. None have escaped. Further, Cullen said, though the now reformed military commissions can provide a fair trial, they will not achieve the same credibility as a federal criminal court.

We must close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, to provide complete closure and show our allies abroad that the United States has decisively rejected the practice of torture. Torture at Guantanamo, Bagram, and CIA black sites was not the action of a few rogue interrogators; it was the product of policy carefully crafted by the Bush administration, and legal cover from the Office of Legal Counsel. To effectively prevent future torture, we must hold accountable those who designed that policy and provided that cover. In an effort to achieve accountability for torture and close Guntanamo, AFJ participated in an action today to raise awareness about this vital issue. To learn more you can watch our short documentary, Tortured Law.

Today, Alliance for Justice in coalition with many different organizations from around the globe is calling for the closure of Guantanamo, and an end to torture. We are attempting to “take over” twitter today by using the hashtag #closegitmo throughout the day of action. We hope you will participate, and we’ve provided a livestream to the right so that you can follow the day’s action. You can also follow Nan Aron at twitter.com/Nanaron for updates throughout the day.

John Yoo has received much press recently after releasing his new book, Crisis and Command. On Monday, January 11, Yoo will appear on the Daily Show to promote the book, purportedly a history of seizures of power by American presidents dating back to George Washington. As we reported yesterday, the Department of Justice’s internal ethics report on the Office of Legal Counsel lawyers, including John Yoo, who authored the “torture memos,” has still not been released.

Given the history of appearances by former DOJ officials on the show, we trust that Jon Stewart will not shy away from confronting Yoo over his authorship of the torture memos. We hope he will also focus on the need for accountability. There is strong political pressure, including within the Obama administration, not to look back – not to investigate. But how can we hold other countries accountable for acts of torture, and not ourselves? Americans have a right to know the facts about what U.S. government lawyers did to provide legal cover for torture. We must hold accountable those who led America astray to make sure this travesty of justice never happens again. For the facts about John Yoo and the torture memos, watch our short film Tortured Law.

Today, members of the Robert Jackson Steering Committee (including Marjorie Cohn, a law Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law featured in our film, Tortured Law) filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act requesting the report from the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) on the Office of Legal Counsel lawyers who authored the “torture memos.” Release of the report has been repeatedly delayed for over a year, and most recently Attorney General Holder promised in November to release it “by the end of the month.” The end of November has come and gone and the report has still not been released.

In addition to requesting the release of the OPR Report, the FOIA request submitted today asks for the following sets of documents:

1.The long-overdue ethics report of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the performance of Bush administration lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) from 2002-2007. The Attorney General last promised to release this report by the end of November, 2009, and it still has not been released.2. The first OPR ethics report on the performance of Bush administration lawyers in the OLC, completed in December, 2008.3. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s 10-page rebuttal of the December, 2008 report, referenced in The New York Times of May 6, 2009.4. A copy of OPR regulations regarding settled procedure on conducting a misconduct investigation and producing a report.5. A copy of any OPR regulations that allow the subjects of the investigation to a) read the final report, b) make changes to the report, and c) allow the Attorney General to rebut the report.6. Copies of all written warnings from 2001 on from veteran members of the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training program to the Department of Justice, including the OLC, stating that SERE methods of interrogation on detainees were ineffective in eliciting the truth and designed more to elicit false confessions.7. Copies of all communications from military and national security lawyers and professionals to the Department of Justice, including the Office of Legal Counsel, objecting to the form of interrogation methods proposed by the CIA and adopted by the Bush White House and the OLC lawyers in 2002.8. Given John Yoo’s statement on p 15 of the New York Times Magazine of January 3, 2010, that “if there’s a conflict between the president and the Congress, then you have to pick one or the other,” we also request any documents shedding light on whom an OLC lawyer is supposed to ‘represent’ in rendering a legal opinion: the President, Congress, the Constitution, or the entire framework of domestic and international law?

This FOIA request is a good step. We hope it brings us closer to the accountability for torture that America needs.

Today, people from across the country are making calls to the Department of Justice. They are asking Attorney General Holder to release the report on the “torture memos” and authorize a full investigation of torture.

We’ve already received feedback from supporters who have made calls and we will be posting updates on this blog throughout the day about that feedback.

The answering machine said that if I got this message during regular working hours (which it was), the office was experiencing a large volume of calls and to please leave a message. I did so, asking that The Attorney General release the memos and then investigate who was responsible and bring them to justice.

Amidst a growing call for a criminal investigation of the DOJ lawyers who authorized torture, John Yoo, author of the most infamous of the “torture memos” withdrew as a speaker at the conservative Federalist Society Convention where Alliance for Justice and human rights supporters are scheduled to take action.

“John Yoo’s withdrawal from the Federalist Society Convention shows that pressure is building to hold accountable those who provided legal cover for torture,” said Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron.

Yoo was scheduled to speak on the panel, “Professional Responsibility: The Role of Government Attorneys and the Global War on Terror” this Thursday, November 12. Alliance for Justice is organizing human rights supporters to rally outside the convention that day and call the Attorney General to ask for immediate release of the report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) on the Justice Department lawyers who wrote the “torture memos.”

Yoo’s withdrawal comes after a top Bush administration Justice Department official, Daniel Levin, publicly stated last week that he was not opposed to a criminal investigation of his and his colleagues’ conduct in preparing and reviewing the “torture memos.” Levin was the acting head of the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2004-05, during which the OLC reviewed the legalities of the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation practices.”

Speaking publicly about this controversial issue for the first time, Mr. Levin said last week at a conference featuring the Alliance for Justice film Tortured Lawat American University’s Washington College of Law about professional ethics and the “torture memos:”

I personally am not opposed to criminal investigation of the conduct of myself and others during the period in question, because I think any government employee is appropriately subject to investigation of their conduct while they are serving in the government.

With the escalating call for accountability, it is no surprise that John Yoo wanted to avoid a question about a criminal investigation during Thursday’s panel.

A steady drumbeat of voices has been calling for accountability for those who ordered, designed, and authorized torture. More than 10,000 people have signed petitions from Alliance for Justice and CREDO Action to Attorney General Eric Holder, urging the immediate release of the OPR report. And on the day that Yoo was scheduled to speak to the Federalist Society, thousands of activists will pick up their phones to call the Department of Justice to ask Attorney General Holder to authorize a full investigation of the authors of the torture memos.

A distinguished panel of legal scholars and practitioners held a spirited discussion today about how best to hold accountable lawyers whose legal advice provided cover for torture in the Bush administration. Watch the web cast of the discussion.

In addition to the panel, the event featured a keynote speech by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) at the event titled, “The Torture Memos: Lawyers, Ethics, and the Rule of Law” and a screening of the new film by AFJ, Tortured Law.

“We need transparency and accountability, to remember that we are not a country that acts independent of the law, even in times of fear and danger,” said Nan Aron, president, Alliance for Justice.

Daniel Levin, former Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel from 2004-2005 when the DOJ was reviewing CIA interrogation techniques, said “I personally am not opposed to criminal investigation of the conduct of myself and others during the period in question, because I think any government employee is appropriately subject to investigation of their conduct while they are serving in the government.”

Levin and the other speakers agreed that the country would benefit from the establishment of a national commission to investigate the facts about the use of torture.

The investigation of the conduct of the lawyers by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility was discussed at length, and several panelists and Senator Whitehouse agreed that releasing OPR’s report on that inquiry was an important first step in determining whether laws were broken.

“We still don’t know all the facts. Information has emerged in bits and pieces over the last several years, thanks to extensive litigation by civil liberties advocates and to the selected release of certain documents by the Obama Administration,” Aron said.

“On Friday the government dumped hundreds more documents about interrogation and detainee policies pursuant to a court order, adding more insight to how detainee abuse developed and was legally justified,” Aron continued. “But so long as the record is incomplete and disjointed, the evidence that emerges raises more questions than it answers – which is all the more reason why Holder should promote full transparency and take the important first step of releasing the OPR report.”

We have all been outraged and saddened by the stories of how our government violated basic human rights. Waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, detainees stripped and abused – the list goes on. Yet so far there has been all too little accountability for those who laid the groundwork for torture.

The Department of Justice has been investigating the infamous “torture memos” since 2004. A report on the findings was expected by June of this year. Four months later, we are still waiting to hear from the Justice Department on exactly who authorized the use of torture by American men and women.

Lack of public information about how torture was approved keeps the focus on the actions of CIA interrogators, rather than investigating those who designed, ordered, and justified torture. There is strong political pressure, including within the Obama administration, not to look back – not to investigate. But how can we hold other countries accountable for acts of torture, and not ourselves? Releasing the report is the first step in establishing accountability.

Americans have a right to know the facts about what U.S. government lawyers did to provide legal cover for torture. We must hold accountable those who led America astray to make sure this travesty of justice never happens again.

Yesterday, Alliance for Justice — with the help of Brad Whitford — issued a fundraising goal of $10,000 by November 12th.

On that day, Alliance for Justice is organizing a National Torture Accountablility Day of Action. If we can raise $10,000 by that date, we will be able to place targeted ads, organize dozens of events across the country, and mobilize thousands of activists to write, call, and email Attorney General Holder, urging him to release the report on the torture memos and investigate those who ordered, designed, and justified torture.

We have already raised 11% of our goal; will you help us get to 100% by November 12th?

With over 70 screenings planned across the country, our new film Tortured Law is having an impact nationwide. Nearly 5,000 people have watched the film on YouTube, and its viral presence continues to grow. We’ve recruited thousands of people to join the campaign urging Attorney General Eric Holder to release the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility report and authorize a full investigation of those who ordered, designed, and justified torture.

We have had great events such as one last week at UC Berkeley School of Law, where one of the authors of the torture memos, John Yoo, is currently on faculty. The students there used our film as part of an event to launch their Torture Accountability Initiative.

Coming up, we have an exciting event at American University’s Washington College of Law on November 3rd, featuring Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Stephen Vladek, Nan Aron, David Luban, Stuart Taylor, and Daniel Levin. You can email [email protected] to find out more or RSVP for this event. You can also find out more on our web page, www.afj.org/torture.